WE'VE MOVED!!

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum

This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I've borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!

The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).

I enjoyed how Something Awful pointed out the oddity of MRAs being simultaneously anti-woman and anti-gay. They will expound for hours on how men are so woefully unappreciated, and then immediately snarl and snap at any man who appears to appreciate men too much.

The hell? ...they sure dialed the crazy up to eleven and ripped off the knob. Many thanks to the goons and David for fulfilling my lulz quota for the day.

One thing I can't quite fathom is that this comment received 34 upvotes on The Spearhead. I know bigoted and violent rhetoric is pretty much the norm in the Spearhead's comments section, but they still manage to surprise me.

Something else occurs to me as I read Something Awful's post, though. What kind of life is it to spend all your time wrapped in such bitterness, loathing, and hatred, to be honestly convinced that the kind of stuff they're spouting is true? It's not a life I would ever live. I find myself mingling pity with being creeped out.

Even in the depths of Twisty-Faster-esque misandric non-feminism, I've never seen anything near such loathing for an entire group of people as I do there.

These men appear to loathe women but really I think they are stuffed to the gills with abject hatred of themselves. All the ways in which they say they reject women in their lives (some of which are illegal such as discrimination in hiring) are only making their own lives harder and more miserable.

What kind of life is it to spend all your time wrapped in such bitterness, loathing, and hatred, to be honestly convinced that the kind of stuff they're spouting is true? It's not a life I would ever live. I find myself mingling pity with being creeped out.

They do deserve pity, if you're feeling charitable enough to feel it for them. They didn't get all the privileges they feel they're entitled to as white men, and they're looking around to see who to blame for it. Women are an easy target.

@ JFP: That "I'm not condoning this or encouraging it, BUT it would be easy" reminds me of OJ Simpson: "If I had killed them, this is how I would have done it..."

@ triplanetary: Just be clear, I don't pity them because I think they're victims, in any way; white American heterosexual men, as a group, are the most privileged people on the planet. But the way they feel is no way to live their lives, and I can't help pitying them even as I fully acknowledge they brought it on themselves. Pity is very different from sympathy or empathy.

I pity them, too, the same way I pitied Azula at the end of Avatar: The Last Airbender, when she was paranoid to the point of delusions, unable to trust anybody, her whole sense of self shattered upon realizing she wasn't in control anymore.

You know, I know a lot of married people - from people my folks' age (late '50s and early '60s), to people I know who married shortly after high school (early '90s) to my friends my age who married in the last 10 years or so - and I can't think of a single marriage like the one described in the screencap. Sure, there's jokes about such things, but when one gets down to the real nitty gritty, it doesn't really take hold. I've known people in those sort of relationship, but rarely does it last into marriage. I do know of marriages wherein both participants live with a permanent loathing of the other, but never this kind of tyrannical beat-down sort of thing the guy describes.

And it reminds me of studying abusers, and how they feel their privilege as a need. They don't need to suffer an abuse, or an act, to feel abused: what they whine about is the absence of luxury. They're used to and expect to be waited on hand and foot. Anything less, and they feel---and claim----that they're being abused.

Heres a legitimate concern of MRAs. No Fault Divorce. Women initiate divorce of married couples with children 70% of the time. The default is women get the children, this is easy to see because men have to "fight" for equal custody. Over the last 20 years around 40 million men have done this and 80% of the time they lose. At a cost of around 20k to fight for the right to retain equal custody of their children men have spent 8 billion dollars over that time and 4 out of 5 times they lose.

Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of. Now barring the high end money makers the vast majority of men make very little money. Barely enough to stay afloat, (myself included). So for instance say both of the divorcees make $15.00 an hour for a take home of $450.00 a week. Well the man now only gets $250.00 a week, while the woman gets %650.00 a week, plus State assistance, plus she gets the child as a tax deduction.

Now say the man who is subsisting of $250.00 a week loses his job. The Bradley Ammendment states there is NO excuse not to pay. This man will now be imprisoned, further, each state recieves 10s of millions of dollars from the federal government to incarcerate these unemployed/dead beat dads. The first thing the State does is suspend his license, then jail him for 6 months. When he is released he will be jobless, homeless, penniless, no drivers license, have a criminal record and he will owe the State $5200.00, because the State paid for his child support while he was in prison. And the best part is his own taxes were used to kidnap his child, have the Stae extort his money while denying him equal custody, then imprison him.

Well who lobbyed for this hideous injustice? We all know the answer. Surely men didn't run to the polls begging for the "privilege" to pay for this kidnapping, extortion, incarceration scam.

Now I'm sure you'll say some men run out on their families, which is no doubt true. However, there have been and still are 100s of thousands if not millions of men in this country who HAVE been treated to this fine batch of laws. How much sympathy do you think these men will show to your vaulted feminism when you show them none?

If you say well I'm not like that it means very little. When the Bolshevics starved 20 million peasants and burned their one room churches do you think the peasants said Oh well that particular communist is a good one because he or she isn't like that? Well that one didn't advocate starving me and only wants to take my freedom, or my money, or my children? So if you pluck a tastey morsel from the feminist tree like Title IX, or Gee I might like to use that holla back thingy some day. All the while claiming you would never kidnap a mans child or falsely accuse a man, it doesn't work that way.

Why not bring out a few of the finer quotes from the Dworkins, Steinens, Solanos, ect. and really slice them up? I mean like 2 or 3 hundred comments to show us all the high morality and equality mindedness of feminists? Unless of course you really are like that.

Women initiate divorce of married couples with children 70% of the time.

MRAs like to cite this statistic all the time, as if it's some kind of damning evidence that women are just greedy bitches or fickle or something. What it indicates to me is that women are likelier to feel unfulfilled or unhappy in their marriages. Most MRAs would probably like to say it's because she's an entitled bitch, but I like to think of women as being actual people. Given the contempt that many MRAs display for women's emotional needs or women's sexuality, is it any wonder they end up being left by their wives?

And when it comes to 50/50 custody... I've never been married or had children, but a lot of my friends growing up had divorced parents. Split custody, where they spent Wednesday-Saturday with one parent and Sunday-Tuesday with the other was actually really stressful for them. They had to have two sets of everything at each house, had to remember what belonging was at which house. It was hard for them to be able to spend time with their friends, because each parent insisted on 'their' time. So I'd say that 50/50 custody, while it might be 'fair' for the parents, is not in the best interests of the child.

Truth is, *someone* has to get custody of the kids, and it's probably going to their primary caretaker. And because our society is the way it is, that's going to be the mother. I think the Bradley amendment is silly, but I also think that parents need to be responsible for the children they have. And if that means sacrificing custody of your kids so they can have a stabler life, that is a noble and meaningful sacrifice.

There might be some women who get divorced and get into vindictive and bitter custody fights... but those women probably aren't feminists. I know a divorced couple, where they both identify as feminist, and they don't even *have* a formal custody arrangement - it's just whatever is best for their daughter at the time.

So you condone and support the idea that the best solution to the issue of fathers' rights is to murder wholesale thousands to millions of women, children and men who you assume refuse to support you in your quest to slaughter thousands to millions of women and their children NWOslave?

Because that is what you are saying. You think the issue of a man who has an issue with his ex is so severe women (and their kids) deserve to die by the thousands to millions over it.

Matt, I agree that normal marriages are nothing like what was described by Aker's story. My husband and I live like best friends with romantic benefits, and neither of us worry about who has more power. Some of those MRA's obsess on who is dominant and submissive in a relationship. Why not have a normal marriage where both are equal partners?

I am guilty of occasionally nagging about the yard or taking out the trash, but I would never say anything rude around his friends. I don't consider the statement "Hey our yard looks like a jungle, honey" to be the equivalent of Chinese water torture. During pregnancy, I would whine about my husband eating food I wanted from the refrigerator. Sometimes my husband gets grouchy too but it is only rarely and it never leads to personal insults or either of us feeling beat down and despondent.

I suspect that because Aker posts at the Spearhead, he is greatly exaggerating the marital problems of his friends. Even if what he is saying is true about the mean wife in the story, he shouldn't generalize that to be the case about all wives. I've seen men and women hurt each other in relationships. That's just life and it's not a gender issue. His comments about the Chinese water torture and calling husbands "hag-slaves" make me think he is a major drama queen.

@Lady Victoria von Syrus...Your comment proves my point. Not one iota of sympathy for the millions of men who have been and are in prison for the crime of being poor.

You say men aren't meeting womens emotional needs, yet men apparently don't have any emotional needs. I guess women have met their husbands needs and HE is a failure.

SO if a man works and a woman doesn't, she is the primary caretaker, if they both work, again, she is the primary caretaker, if she works and he doesn't, once again SHE is the breadwinning primary caretaker.

That "silly" Bradley Ammendment. Who was it that lobbyed for that winner I wonder?

NWOslave - Okay, first of all, "millions" of men aren't in jail for nonsupport. (And you generally won't go if you can prove you don't have the income.) Like, "thousands," tops.

That said... I'd feel a lot more comfortable if some MRAs were willing to come out and say "of course we respect women and understand that we have to work with them to achieve our goal of changing divorce laws." Not just talking about something other than misogyny, but actively denying it while talking about real issues.

As it is, when you don't criticize the misogyny you create the impression that you think divorce laws justify talk about removing women's larynxes.

Or let me put it this way: I'm a feminist blogger. I am not a misandrist. I think men are no better and no worse than women. People are just people, good and bad. There are certainly lots of individual men that I like (or love) and admire. And in general I don't judge someone by their gender.

I don't advocate or tolerate misandry on my blog. I don't think that "well, this issue is so bad that it makes me really angry" justifies misandry. Even the rape and murder of women--even sexism against myself--even violence against myself--has never pushed me to judge men as a gender, much less advocate for discrimination against them. Much less cheer on or make light of violence against them.

I don't think this is saintly of me; that's not my point. I think it's, you know, normal of me.

@cboye...If we lived in a Patriarchial Society, men would be given default custody. Patriarchy meaning men are oppressors and women are the oppressed.

A Patriarchy would have Title IX for men, VAMA NOT VAWA, default male custody, 10 federally funded mens health centers and 0 for women, men would have the "right" of abortion NOT women, quotas, less than 1/2 the sentence of men for the same crime, ect, ect, ect.

So unless Patriarchy disproportionally benefits women over men, your use of the word is incorrect.

Also if feminists are trying to change that, why did they successfully lobby to install all these laws? Isn't this the exact opposite of what you just said?

@Holly...I'm right here. I advocate the same things. Men and women who act honorably should be treated as such. Men and women who act poorly should be treated poorly. The LAW however treats men harshly while allowing women free reign for virtually any behavior when concerning men. And thats wrong.

NWOslave - Okay, that's partly true but overstated--they do have women's prisons, you know, and women definitely can lose custody. But women are treated differently under the law and I agree that's wrong.

Now get those fucking creepy larynx-removal-dudes out of your movement or at least work a little harder to distance yourself from 'em, kay?

NWOslave: Look at the link that JFP provided. Do you or do you not support such kind of action against women for the problems you claim there are?

As for your claim that all of these that help women are so bad: what do you think was the situation before they were enacted? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only had women added to ensure its defeat. It had nothing to do with helping any woman.

@Holly...I am talking about something real, and yes millions of men HAVE been incarcerated for the crime of being too poor to pay child support. This denial on your part is hurtful. It's no different than an MRA saying ALL women lie about rape. The Bradley Ammendment makes it quite clear there is NO excuse not to pay. Men HAVE been imprisoned after being released from POW camps, coming out of coma's, released from prison and then being thrown back in prison. This isn't imaginary it happens every day.

I do NOT respect women by default, respect is earned. I do NOT respect men by default, respect is earned. I advocate none of the evils you speak of, yet even you, who say you aren't misandric accuse me of wanting to remove a womans larynx. Tell me what have I written that is misogynist?

@Lady Victoria von Syrus...Your comment proves my point. Not one iota of sympathy for the millions of men who have been and are in prison for the crime of being poor.

I doubt that millions of men are in jail for lack of ability to pay child support. Some men are probably jailed because they *refused* to pay, not that they were unable. Please find me a reliable statistic indicating how many men (per capita, in a given year, as a percentage of the prison population, etc) are put in jail over child support, and ONLY child support. No fair giving me a guy who has a felony or DUI and the D.A. decided to tack that on at the end.

You say men aren't meeting womens emotional needs, yet men apparently don't have any emotional needs. I guess women have met their husbands needs and HE is a failure.

Your logic fails. If a man is not meeting his wife's needs, yes, that's probably a reason why she decided to file for divorce. In that case, of women filing for divorce, I think it's fair to venture that her needs were probably not being met. But many woman are not married, or happily married. I assume that a happily married woman, or even contently married woman, is having her needs adequately met by her husband. Yay for the both of them! The world needs more happy marriages.

If the statistic was reversed, and 70% of men were the ones who initiated divorce, I would certainly wonder why it seemed that more men were unhappy being married than women.

SO if a man works and a woman doesn't, she is the primary caretaker, if they both work, again, she is the primary caretaker, if she works and he doesn't, once again SHE is the breadwinning primary caretaker.

I make no assumptions about primary caretaker. But the truth is, when it comes to taking care of a newborn, staying abreast of doctors' appointments, going to parent-teacher conferences, cooking healthy meals, etc., it's likely to be the mother shouldering those responsibilities. Not because women are inherently better or anything, but in our culture, it's just assumed that women do most of the parenting. I would say that if a stay at home dad divorced his wife, he would be entitled to primary caretaker custody and child support from her.

That "silly" Bradley Ammendment. Who was it that lobbyed for that winner I wonder?

Feminists disagree with each other. It happens. I disagree with this.

It seems men are broken, arent they?

I'm certainly sorry you feel this way. I certainly don't.

Scenario:

Man is a stay at home dad, and is the one who stays up late at night, makes midnight pharmacy runs, keeps his children fed and happy, takes them shopping for clothes and school supplies and generally does most of the parenting work while his wife pursues a career. The marriage fails, and he files for divorce. The judge, recognizing that he is the primary caretaker, awards primary custody to the father and orders the mother to pay child support. But the mother does not provide child support. It doesn't really matter why, but now the stay at home dad, who stopped developing his own career to take care of his kids for ten years, has to fully support his children on a meager income.

Should she be thrown in jail? Is it fair to keep her from her children, that she worked so hard to support when the marriage was working?

@Holly...I went to the link and saw the comment. Advocating killing is fucking horrible, no doubt about it. But as I said your own house is a pig sty, shall we cruise on over to femenisite and perusue the comment section?

This entire site is dedicated to finding and exposing the lowest common denominator in the MRM, yet not a peep about the lowest of the feminist low. Again I wait for THAT to even begin to show feminism isn't the Marxist hate ideology it has PROVEN itself to be.

I said it in my first comment. Get the Dworkin, Steinen, Solaras, ect, ect, ect. comments out here and start tearing them to shreds. Until then I simply can't see how I, MYSELF, could possibly ally with a movement that cannot critically examine it's own version of equality.

@Lady Victoria von Syrus....Your last comment again proves men are to blame. Men DO NOT get costody for being a stay at home dad. You know this, why do you persist acting like the LAW is in any way eqitable.

Every comment here says the same thing, a woman can never blamed.

Men are imperfect women. Men are broken.Men are the burgiousse oppressor class.Women are the peasant victim class.Man = Bad.Woman = Good.

In addition the SCOTUS is grappling with the issue of court appointed attorneys for men (and women) facing jail time in child custody issues right now, although in that case the father was a drug addict (I think he has cleaned up and is now simply unable to work.)

You are failing to answer my question. Let's assume that this is a perfect world, and you have gotten every iota of social change you could ever hope for.

Does this deadbeat mother deserve to be thrown in jail or cut off from her children?

shall we cruise on over to femenisite and perusue the comment section?

Please, please show me the comments at Feministe or any other blog to the left of this post under 'Antidotes to Boobery', and indicate where the commenter is advocating non-consensual and crippling surgery on male infants, where they say that having a relationship with a man is a worthless pursuit, where they say men are unworthy of friendship or deserve to be punished or killed. They might get angry at individual men, but never the gender, or even large parts of the gender, as a whole.

I think women can be blamed for a lot. I mean, not as a whole gender. But as individuals, women (even feminist women) can be selfish, shortsighted, greedy, mean, vindictive and deceitful. Just like men can also be selfish, shortsighted, greedy, mean, vindictive and deceitful. Women (and men) can also be altruistic, compassionate, trustworthy, brave, talented and insightful.

No one is insisting that men are imperfect or broken except for you, and for that I feel extremely sorry for you.

@Holly...Wasn't all your "greats" in feminism that proudly declared the population of men needs to be reduced to 10% if the planet is to survive. Those particular men I believe were to be kept as slave labor and the handsome ones as stud service?

Again I wait for the Dworkins, Steinens, Solaras, ect, ect, ect to be denounced. But none of you can do it can you? C'mon show me the brilliant nature of women. The "caregivers" of THEIR children. Show me you know the definition of equality by merit. Show me the feminist "honor."

What are the particular quotes by Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem or Valerie Solanas that you find so objectionable? These women have quite a body of work, and it's the pursuit of an entire career to study all of it. But if you found some correctly sourced quotes, I'm sure we could have quite a discussion about it.

Emphasis on 'correctly sourced.' If these women are really as awful as you claim, then you shouldn't have to make anything up or use dodgy quotes, will you?

Seriously, show me the Feministe post--or ANY popular modern feminist--that says anything of the sort.

Also, I can't show you the "honor" of women as a whole because there's three billion of us and some of us are assholes. We don't exactly move as one. But, shit, the only reason I can't point you at every woman who's a hard worker and good mother and all-round decent person is because there's like fifteen or twenty on my street, you know? I don't know what the hell street you live on.

@cboye...If we lived in a Patriarchial Society, men would be given default custody. Patriarchy meaning men are oppressors and women are the oppressed.

A patriarchy doesn't mean that in every possible instance, things always work out better for men and worse for women. If you have highly regimented roles, then on rare occasions when the less desirable role becomes more desirable, the empowered person will be at a disadvantage to the unempowered person.

So usually being expected to have a high-paying job puts you at an advantage over being expected to stay home and take care of kids. Until something gets decided based on your perceived ability to take care of kids.

If, as feminists want, there were no gender-based expectations about who would be better at taking care of kids, then there would be no bias in custody cases.

Therefore feminists are working to solve this problem. You just don't care because you don't actually want equality--you're just angry that there's any area where women have a societal advantage over men.

Also (and I believe this is important), I would like to publicly declare, silly as this is going to sound, that I think men should have all natural human rights and if anyone is advocating this wacky 10% plan, they're completely off their nut and I don't like or agree with them at all.

She was not, is not, and should not be ever considered one of the "greats."

Instead, she hurt the attempt for equality because she made women asking to be treated equal look like they were loons.

Which is why we tell you to shun those who say such nasty things on your side. But you refuse to. It was not until I boxed you completely in that you finally said "advocating killing is horrible." Then you immediately jumped into claiming we never criticize, denounce our own radicals which we have, repeatedly.

@NWOSlave - well, clearly you don't know anything about feminist history if you think there is no dissent whatsoever within the feminist movement. There's plenty of debate within feminism itself and plenty of modern feminists who strongly disagree with what Dworkin and the "classical" feminists have said. Just recently, Naomi Wolf got a lot of shit for stuff she said about Julian Assange FROM FEMINISTS. Also, have you ever heard of the pornography wars in the 80s and 90s? And let's not get into "feminism" vs. "womanism".

Plus, David put up a post some time ago systematically debunking each of the most controversial quotes attributed to radical feminists as the most man-hatey of them all.

Can't link to it as I am posting from my phone at the moment, but there is a site dedicated solely to the nutjob Peter Nolan, called Peter Nolan Psychopath that is very interesting. The very fact that this person is so welcomed and admired by his MRA buddies at the-spearhead, who upvote him and support his violent rhetoric continually makes the MRM very creepy. There are many dangerous men among them. I've seen similar comments on the-spearhead before. Certain men do take shots at cops as he describes, most cops killed on DV calls are ambushed and never had a chance, and when I see stories like that, I always wonder if the suspect was connected to the MRM.

What kind of life is it to spend all your time "wrapped in such bitterness, loathing, and hatred, to be honestly convinced that the kind of stuff they're spouting is true? It's not a life I would ever live. I find myself mingling pity with being creeped out."

This very much reminds me of feminists. Especially the obsessed zealots such as the ones who hang in this blog.

But I understand, it's okay for feminists to be shameless hypocrites. It's okay for feminists to whine whine whine about men on a daily basis.

These feminists are magically not deemed as being creeps or sexist monsters. Only such labels can be put on men.

Watch the movie Who shot Andy Warhal, then get back to the feminists about how she was one of their greats. (feminist producer or definitely feminist influence in the creation of this movie)

Not everything you read on the internet is true. Even if Angry Harry told you so.

As a side note your stats on child support dollars, etc are very very off. Actually not just off, when you get your stats from mra bloggers you should not hold them up as factual.

Try this. Google average child support paid first. (that would be for all children) then google cost of raising a child.

Dig deep outside of mra blogs and forums. Then get back to me. Come back with factual numbers then we can talk.

Speaking of numbers while you are out there perhaps you can run the numbers of the cost of childcare and the quality of childcare you want for your children. Our nanny was paid 25$ an hour, private daycare starts at 40$ a day, last time I was updated government subsidized was 25$ a day. Seems that child support isn't such a cash cow?

I realize that most mra's seem to think all it takes is feeding children fish sticks and sticking them in front of the t.v. In my home raising children meant engaging them in activities that would promote their intelligence and world view, being active and engaged. That is really a full time good for society as a whole job.

"Not one iota of sympathy for the millions of men who have been and are in prison for the crime of being poor."

And that is not one bit surprising coming from the feminist movement. The biggest complainers about sexism are the biggest offenders of sexism as its hard to find a feminist who actually cares about men's issues or has equal concern towards men's issues as they do with women's issues.

"If we lived in a Patriarchial Society, men would be given default custody. Patriarchy meaning men are oppressors and women are the oppressed."

Feminists are too fucking dumb to figure this out. Anyone is highly delusional and not right in the head if they believe a so called patriarchy exists in American society and other western societies in 2011.

The delusions displayed from these bigoted zealots is amusing though in a disturbing way

"She was not, is not, and should not be ever considered one of the "greats."

As I have said a few times in this blog, feminists such as Valerie are well known from the support of a large number of many other feminists. If many feminists didn't support people like her, she wouldn't be heard of.

There simply aren't MILLIONS of men who have been or are in prisons for INABILITY to pay child support. This is an outright lie. And I don't have sympathy for those deadbeats had the ABILITY to support their children but refused to do so.

No nick.. Valerie is known because of the movie "Who shot Andy Warhal"

That's it.

Some feminists have tried to deconstruct her actions as being radical feminist instead of an act of a crazy person. I have never heard her acts celebrated but I have heard a few excuses for her.

Some mra's have tried to deconstruct Marc Lepines actions as being mra instead of the act of a crazy person. I have heard his actions celebrated on mra forums, and the rest excuse him. I have never seen on a mra blog or forum anyone stand up and say Lepine targeted women. (and this was a bad thing)

What they both have in common is mental illness. If your thinking is going in either of their ideals perhaps you should see a doctor?

Kave, you are avoiding the question. How and where is it evident that the majority of feminists actually care about men's issues? Or even if some do, show where they express "equal concern" towards male issues as they do towards women's.

That said, I find it laughable how you are going on with crap about being mentality ill. So in your little sheltered feminist world, anyone is mentality ill if they believe most feminists are sexist. Yet, a person is not if they believe most MRAs are sexist. Wow these femitwits love their double standards.

No wonder why I don’t take you bunch of bigoted clowns seriously. This is why I hardly post in this blog as its full of feminist zealots who are lost in their delusional little feminist world.

I won't bother carrying on in this thread as it will just be the same old bigoted crap over and over again about feminist/women are perfect princesses and any man who criticises women/feminists are evil and creepy.

ROFL do feminists care about men's needs? Fuck no! When ever men express their issues,99.9 percent of the time, feminists scoff at it.

Well, yeah, if your 'need' is to feel better about yourself by denigrating women (or gays, or other races, or other religions), that's a need I feel pretty comfortable scoffing at. Maybe that makes me evil, but at least I can sleep at night (and don't waste my time coddling man-children or stroking their egos).

Feminists totally agree that men have emotional needs, too... though they do take the position that a man isn't entitled to this from any given random woman he so desires. Her wishes and needs matter, too.

I'm still waiting for you to cite evidence that 99.9 percent of the time feminists (women) do not care about men's issues. Until you come somewhat close to citing some kind of statistical data I'm going to consider you someone that is mentally ill.

" How and where is it evident that the majority of feminists actually care about men's issues"

What do you really mean by feminist? Do you really mean women caring about men?

I could cite many right wing female bloggers which mra people seems to eat up as gold. Sarah Palin is in some mra's eyes the ultimate woman (and yes I can provide links) yet she's also considered a feminist in mra eyes.

"I 'm unsuccessful with women hence all women/feminists are bad. Rinse and repeat with no internal pressure until my xbox (or other video gaming device) is threatened. "

Nick.. you know you'll end up the loser in any of the above situations not because you're male but because the vast majority of humans are uncomfortable around you regardless of sex. Do you really think you'd do that better off if you desired to date males?

I must say I have never seen a person jailed for child support where the state was not actively involved in throwing a welfare fit about the mother. Seriously. Our intensely negative views of women on welfare are a huge factor here. I knew one very poor women who would joke that the only time anyone cared that her ex worked under the table so as not to have to try and help feed the kids was when she went to renew their benefits. It is sad because it is true. The Bradley Amendment actually had significant conservative anti-feminist support, because it was largely sold as a way to get women and kids off of the welfare rolls.

Oh, on another note, I can't be the only one who noticed the irony of NWO's language based criticism in regards to refering to kids as women's children when he explicitly did the same thing with them being men's children ("kidnap a mans child") a few comments before, can I?

"I'm still waiting for you to cite evidence that 99.9 percent of the time feminists (women) do not care about men's issues. Until you come somewhat close to citing some kind of statistical data I'm going to consider you someone that is mentally ill."

This makes me uncomfortable. There's no link between being mentally ill and being misogynist. I don't think we should attribute misogyny to anything other than what it is.

And yes, I know this is in the context of Valerie Solanas who was mentally ill. However, there's no evidence that the bulk of the MRAs are, and I'd prefer not to blame their attitudes on mental illness. "Crazy people" get short enough shrift as it is.

Nick seems to be starting with the assumption that "feminist" is simply a synonym for "world's worst poopyheads," and not really thinking or researching anything beyond that.

As I've noted before, the MRAs' assumptions about feminism are pure projection. Since the MRAs are fueled by hatred of the opposite sex, they assume feminists are the same way, and nothing you say can shake that assumption.

They aren't amenable to reasoned arguments, as every MRA who has posted to this blog has demonstrated. That's why I prefer mockery.

NWO slave said that if I tell my husband our yard looks bad, that is domestic violence. I found that offensive because he's trying to equate occasional nagging with physical assault against a weaker spouse. They're not in the same ballpark, or even the same sport. If griping was domestic violence, almost everyone would be in jail.

Also, I see these MRA's show all this sympathy for men ordered to pay child support. Why not show sympathy for impoverished single parents that aren't receiving child support from their ex wives and ex husbands? I also feel sympathy for the children that go without clean clothes and nutritious food because their single parent isn't receiving support from the other parent.

NWO Slave: One time I attempted to make eggplant parmesan. The end result looked like a watery mixture of spaghetti sauce and cheese. My husband joked that we could throw it outside to scare wild animals away. Then we both laughed very hard and I threw the horrible dish away. Life is so much easier if you have a sense of humor. It wasn't "controlling behavior". It was just funny.

I have a dad I love very much, I have male professors and authority figures that I can respect and think well of, even if we don't always agree.

I have several good guy friends with fun quirks and interests (one took his hair straightener to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, another will sometimes collect roadkill to make coonskin caps). I don't like to see them feeling bad, I hate it when they feel like they have to repress their emotions. I hate it when they end up saying or doing hurtful things to others, because I want to believe that, for the most part, they are not malicious, but that they just don't realize what kind of pain they're inflicting.

Do you care about the women in your life? Do you care if they're hurting, do you care if you're the one hurting them? Or do you imagine their pain to be negligible compared to the pain that men feel?

This insistence that feminists don't care about men, and that they must prove it, and even then they may not be believed, is just more MRA projection.

Masculinity has defined itself exclusively in contradistinction to the feminine for so long that a serious challenge to the idea of inherent male superiority has left millions of American men floundering—and the best answer most of them have found for the question "What is my role if not a keeper of women?" is "I am a victim of oppression by women." Femininity has become the center-pin around which masculinity pivots—on one side there is dominion; on the other side, subjugation.

And yes, I know this is in the context of Valerie Solanas who was mentally ill. However, there's no evidence that the bulk of the MRAs are, and I'd prefer not to blame their attitudes on mental illness. "Crazy people" get short enough shrift as it is.

Agreed. It's entirely possible to be bigoted, shortsighted, and self-absorbed without being mentally ill.

Indeed, Sally. As it's been pointed out earlier, the entire book Stiffed by Susan Faludi would seem to refute Nick's contention. Not that he and his ilk will ever read it or stop repeating the same moronic mantras.

Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of. Now barring the high end money makers the vast majority of men make very little money. Barely enough to stay afloat, (myself included).

So place the blame where it belongs- the (overwhelmingly white, straight male) "high end money makers" who have been implementing the policies that are "keeping you down."

Captain Bathrobe, I gave a glowing review on Amazon to "Stiffed", which is eloquent about the pressures men face, and some guy told me that there's no way he would even consider reading a book written about men by someone named 'Susan'. The author's name is Susan Faludi. She's a pulitzer-prize winning journalist.

And if Valeria Solanas is this big feminist heroine, how come the only people who ever talk about her are bitter MRAs like Nick, who I see still hasn't returned with proof of his 99.9 figure?

Captain Bathrobe, I gave a glowing review on Amazon to "Stiffed", which is eloquent about the pressures men face, and some guy told me that there's no way he would even consider reading a book written about men by someone named 'Susan'. The author's name is Susan Faludi. She's a pulitzer-prize winning journalist.

How odd. What's wrong with "Susan," I wonder? Maybe if her name were "Valerie"...or possibly "Bubbles."

Seriously, though, I think the idea of a serious female journalist who tackles men's issues in a compassionate manner is so alien to the MRA worldview that it simply doesn't compute. They are comfortable with their stereotypes--overly-emotional women, greedy gold-diggers, bitter feminists, sperm-stealing harpies, etc. The reality of "not saints nor whores, just women" seems beyond their comprehension.

They want to be viewed as complicated, fascinating creatures, but they want to regard women as stupid, shallow, vicious animals.

It all comes back to misogyny with a healthy scoop of narcissism, IMHO. They are, as you say, special and unique little snowflakes who must be understood in all their glorious complexity. A problem isn't a problem unless it happens to them or can happen to them. This is how they can dismiss rape as a concern (except rape of men in prison) while crying that false rape accusations are The Worst Problem Ever. This is why failure to pay child support is of no consequence, whereas actually having to pay child support is a Gross Injustice. It's only a problem if it affects them. And they imagine that feminists operate in the same manner, the work of Faludi and others notwithstanding.

I don't imagine this is true of all MRAs, but the majority of those I've seem posting here seem to be profoundly empathy-challenged.

NWOslave is just repeating the usual anti-VAWA propaganda he's read on some manosphere website or other. He's trying to make it seem as though the VAWA defines domestic violence in such a ridiculously overbroad manner that any reasonable person should be against it. Of course, the VAWA does no such thing, but that won't stop him from repeating the lie.

NWOslave said... Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of.

The real numbers :The 2001 proportion of custodial parents receiving every child support payment they were due was 44.8 percent. Among these parents, the average amount received was $5,800, and did not differ significantly between mothers and fathers.That is $5800 in total for the year.--- $250 a week would be 13,000 a year in child support. Really? I mean really?

NWOslave said...So for instance say both of the divorcees make $15.00 an hour for a take home of $450.00 a week. Well the man now only gets $250.00 a week, while the woman gets %650.00 a week, plus State assistance, plus she gets the child as a tax deduction.

Participation in public assistance programs by custodial parents fell from 40.7 to 28.4 percent between 1993 and 2001. While the rate of program participation for custodial mothers decreased from 45.2 percent to 31.0 percent during that time.---so the majority of custodial mothers are not on welfare. Even with the scenario given by NWO, the total income would be $36,400 for the year(her income plus the child support, which is how it would be calculated for eligibility), for a woman with that income to get public benefits,she better have at least 7 kids to meet the federal poverty line. The poverty line for a family of 8 is $37,630. She would not qualify without many children.I know a woman with 5 kids that makes $20 an hour and gets no child support and she did not qualify for food stamps or child care assistance. MRA's seem to think more people can get assistance than they do in reality. Also, I know many women that get court ordered child support. The support order stipulates that the dad can claim the tax deduction for the child every other year, as long as he is paying the child support. No child expense--no deduction. I believe that is fair.

When NWO says something like "all feminists hate men," don't reply by saying "I'm a feminist and I love (list of men)." That's allowing him to frame the debate, putting yourself on the defensive. You know perfectly well that he will never change his mind, no matter how many people say it.

The correct response is "What proof do you have of that?" This puts him rightly on the defensive, forcing him to prove his ridiculous generalization rather than you disproving it.

I've actually never met a feminist who shows even one onehundredth the level of contempt for men that MRAs show on a regular basis. To hear the MRAs tell it, all men are crude, uncivilized, hateful, bitter, selfish, incompetent losers who spend their free time raging about how much they hate holding doors open for anybody who has a vagina and how awful it is to have to financially support their biological offspring.

Thank heavens I hang out with feminists, who remind me that men are actually just as capable, tender, funny, friendly, quirky, and joyful as women are.

The SCUM Manifesto wasn't satire so much as the revenge fantasy of a mentally ill person in response to a lifetime of homophobic and misogynist abuse.

As for denouncing Gloria Steinem or Andrea Dworkin, there's no reason to do so as their positions are perfectly reasonable to anybody who's actually read more than the one or two snippets MRAs like to copy/paste all over the internet to "prove" how terrible feminists are.

Kave said...

"NWOslave

Watch the movie Who shot Andy Warhal, then get back to the feminists about how she was one of their greats. (feminist producer or definitely feminist influence in the creation of this movie)"

It was directed by Mary Harron, who also directed American Psycho which, ironically, misogynists generally love. Misogynists aren't great at nuance or reading between lines. That's why the book sucked.

@snobographer, off the top of my head, I can think of some hateful things Steinem has said about trans people and some really problematic things she has said about race. And, while Dworkin is not the boogey man she is often portrayed as, she had some very problematic views about sex and sexuality (as did Steinem) to say the least.

Andrea Dworkin lived during a time when white men could rape their coworkers, sell their wives' belongings, harass their workers, and do just about anything they want---legally. Sexual harassment was just something men laughed about, it wasn't something women could do anything about because it was part of life. Wife beating was called, "What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing you haven't told her twice already." Har har har. That's still a popular tee shirt with some people. Marital rape didn't exist. And so on. When my mother got a job and bought the family home, she had to get my father's permission to get her own credit and her own credit cards. It used to be legal for abusive men to ruin womens' credit, then leave them holding the bill. Child support wasn't required, and men could just skip off and leave their wives and kids destitute. And they did. And MRAs are angry that Dworkin wrote about this, and many other things, and that they can't get away with the shit that their daddies could.

i just wonder, sometimes, at the total lack of knowledge some MRAs have - especially of history.

the Suffragette movement had some basic goals.1. get the vote2. get BC and abortion legalized - up to that point [and several decades later] birth control was ILLEGAL, and abortion wasn't illegal so much as it was Alegal - no one cared.3. change laws that prevented women from divorce in almost any case; change laws to read "child goes to best care-taker" rather than "automatically go to the father"

it wasn't until the 30's that women were starting - STARTING! - to not ALWAYS automatically lose custody if they COULD get a divorce.

because, for the past several thousand years, it was "children are OWNED by their fathers" of course, it was also "WOMEN are OWNED by their husbands", so there's that.

today, the PRESUMPTION, unless there's some other compelling reason [like abuse] *IS* joint custody.many men don't WANT their kids around 24/7, because the don't WANT to do all the child-caring. i don't know what percentage of men this is, but it is SOME percentage. [my own father did this - while they technically had joint custody, he wouldn't take us for more than a few weeks of the year. oh, and he paid a whopping $300/month for BOTH of us. and that amount never changed, even when he started making a fuck-ton more money]

and money isn't enough - but i KNOW men, right now, who bitch about paying said amount [a couple hundred a MONTH] and REFUSE to spend more than a minimum of time with their kids. is this all men? no, of course not! but MRAs ignore these men, act like ALL men ONLY want their kids, period, all the time - and i really, really doubt it's the case.

raising kids is HARD.

my favorite guy [other than my boyfriend] is a friend of mine who's a stay-at-home-dad. he's AWESOME with the kids, and his wife works her ass off to support them all, because they both wanted a stay-at-home-parent, she made more than he did [also, he's better with them] they rock - they're great friends, have great kids, and are all around awesome people.

@Elizabeth - The book portrayed Bateman as some kind of antihero. The movie made him a portrait of a sociopath and humanized his victims.

@denelian - It's anecdotal, but I know of one divorced woman whose ex refused to pay child support on the grounds that he didn't have custody. She called his bluff and told him since she couldn't afford to raise the kids without financial support, he'd just have to take full custody of them. He started making his damn payments after that.

Snobographer: My sister's ex was the one who asked for the divorce----he was going through a mid life crisis and cheating on her with a twentysomething with five kids by five different fathers-----but when she put up a fight, he quit his job out of spite and then was shocked, shocked that the trial judge asked for proof of whatever excuse he came up with. Claimed he was upset about the divorce---you know, the one he asked for. My sister worked three jobs, my ex BIL worked under the table and his sons now hate him. For that matter, I've found myself dating young men whose mothers went through some very similar shit, and they're squarely on their mom's side, with the occasional truly scary exception.

Sociable

ShareThis

About We Hunted the Mammoth

Ah, misogyny! I track down some of the most egregious and/or entertaining examples of man-boobery online (and sometimes off). I find a lot of it on Men's Rights and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) sites. Sometimes I mock. TRIGGER WARNING: I quote some pretty extreme misogyny here; also, the comments section is pretty much unfiltered.

I've been writing on topics ranging from gender and culture to money and
technology for more than twenty years, mostly as a freelancer.

Starting in the late 1990s, I covered tech and investing, at first for Newsday and the now-defunct Upside magazine, then as a staff writer at Money magazine. More recently, I blogged on money and business for Time.com.